The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs- Page 2

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 3/17/12 at 3:37pm

Daisey's "it's theater" excuse is pitiful. There is no question he meant for his play, his television and radio appearances, and his editorials to be taken as fact. By not acknowledging this he is continuing to lie and do a disservice to a cause he claims to believe in.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/17/12 at 6:08pm

Thanks for asking, Gypsy9, and thanks for the explanation, sweeneytodd2. I too was confused by that particular reference to the Holocaust. But I understand completely your point about Holocaust deniers, who point to every discrepancy in accounts as if it disproves the entire historical event.

I'm less bothered by dramatic license in a theater piece (although it might be argued that the slandering of a real-life company and its executives requires a higher standard of literal accuracy). I accept that theater pieces take liberties with objective fact in order to dramatize universal truths. (Even Aristotle points this out in The Poetics.)

But where the playwright went totally wrong was to go on a news program and present his stage monologue as reportage. And then to lie about the sources of his research. I don't see how he could not have known better.

I'm currently writing a play about gay men in the military during WWII. I've done years' worth of research, but if asked, I will readily admit that research for a play is used differently than research for an article or TV news magazine. Yes, I'm trying to be faithful to fundamental truths of the period, but those truths are not objective in the journalistic sense; they are filtered through my point of view. And in spanning the gap of 70 years, I sometimes deliberately falsify a detail so that it makes better sense to a contemporary audience.

Updated On: 3/17/12 at 06:08 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/17/12 at 6:43pm

I find the Public's statement on this whole debacle nothing short of appalling ... it would be exceedingly generous to call it "weak" -- it's in fact the same untenable distinction Daisey himself is trying to hide behind. I've been a supporter (frequent contributor and attendeed) for many years: given how little integrity they're approaching this situation with, i may have to rethink all that.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 3/17/12 at 6:49pm

I agree whatever2. The Public is by far my favorite theater company in town and, though I plan to continue being a member, I've written Eustis about the theater's statement.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/17/12 at 8:48pm

If you get a response, chris, I would love to know what it is. In my experience, Oskar is a man of great integrity. But he's also very much a social activist, so I'm interested in what he believes to be the moral position on this topic.

(ETA: the Public Theatre's online statement is not unqualified:

"Mike is an artist, not a journalist. Nevertheless, we wish he had been more precise with us and our audiences about what was and wasn't his personal experience in the piece."

(Emphasis added.))

Updated On: 3/17/12 at 08:48 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 1:13am

According to the AP, Daisey changed the show, beginning with a bit about the controversy, and removing sections he could no longer "stand behind."

[Kad]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 1:46am

What, precisely, do you want the Public to DO at this point? The run ends with tomorrow's matinee.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 3:00am

PJ posted the This American Life has the broadcast of the retraction up from its website.

Daisey's interviewed. Full of long pauses and resignation from Daisey's side. Ira pulls no punches.




Daisey's account Updated On: 3/18/12 at 03:00 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 11:29am

Posted on Mike Daisey's site, the prologue from his first show back:


"that the Greeks invented so long ago"

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 1:04pm

The Glass/Daisey "reunion" was the very definition of uncomfortable. Holy yeesh!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 1:20pm

My favorite line was when Glass said something to the effect of: I understand you believe that but I have to tell you you're kidding yourself.

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 1:47pm

Kad: the Public spends five paragraphs DEFENDING Daisey and then offers the milquetoast "we wish ..." that Gaveston quotes above.

The "we wish" is pathetic and the defense unconscionable.

I expect the Public to say what Ira Glass said; i.e., that we were misled and we're sorry that in turn led us to mislead you ... that we understand while there is a difference between theater and journalism, there are no "varieties" of the truth ...that both in our theater and in the broader world, the "artist" mike daisey actively engaged in a concerted and protracted effort intended to lead people to believe that he was holding himself to the norms of the "journalist" mike daisey ... that he knew we all thought that, and allowed us to keep thinking that non-facts were facts ... and that he benefitted (and, indirectly, the Public benefitted) from that duplicity.

And that even though he won't say he's sorry, we will.

Or something like that.

There's zero expression in the Public's statement of any sense of accountability or duty to the truth. I don't doubt they were as duped as (most of) the rest of us ... but they need to stand up to their constituency with the same integrity that This American Life did and own the consequences of what occurred.

More or less their statement just tries to defend the indefensible. That puts them on the same level as Limbaugh or Fox.

Updated On: 3/18/12 at 01:47 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 1:59pm

BTW: slighly unrelated, but can anyone honestly imagine an organization like Fox doing the kind of painful, soul-searching post-mortem we all heard on This American Life yesterday?!?

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 2:59pm

Imagine in some parallel universe someone wrote a one-man play in defense of Apple's labor practices, with the same amount of lies as Daisey's. Would Mr. Daisey accept the "it's theater, not journalism" excuse from them?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 3:30pm

BTW: slighly unrelated, but can anyone honestly imagine an organization like Fox doing the kind of painful, soul-searching post-mortem we all heard on This American Life yesterday?!?

Absolutely not, whatever2. At the same time, I have no quarrel with your argument that the Public's statement could have gone further.

But in this thread, we all continue to ignore the fact that almost all art distorts the details of reality in order to get at what the artist believes to be a more universal truth. This is no less true of pieces such as Black's "8" or Mann's "Execution of Justice" where every word comes from public testimony; the editing of the remarks changes them--and distorts "reality"--all the same.

The playwright's misstatements on a news program are easily condemned.

His distortions in his play, however, fall into a grayer area. I do think the fact that he is charging an existing company and real executives with immoral behavior raises his burden of accuracy. But how high?

And what of other examples of dramatic license (which occurs in every single play to some extent)? Where is the line to be drawn?

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 3:39pm

> we all continue to ignore the fact that almost all art distorts the details of reality in order to get at what the artist believes to be a more universal truth.

respectfully, i'm not ignoring it -- i'm discounting its relevance to this particular situation. daisey deliberately allowed us all to believe -- indeed actively took steps to further the belief -- that his art wasn't doing that.

his lies aren't just "distortions in a play" -- he took extra steps to make people think the distortions were facts, and stood by to watch his box office benefit from the misrepresentation. it is, as sister annunciata would explain to us in THIRD GRADE catechism, the difference between a sin of omission and a sin of commission.

ETA: btw, the Public's lawyers would have no trouble telling us where to draw the line: if you artificially put real pepole (or real companies) in a bad light without the facts to back it up, you change their names or disclaim it in your program. or both. if you deliberately distort reality to the detriment of real people, the law calls that defamation.

("the following is a work of fiction ... any similarities ... are entirely coincidental.")

Updated On: 3/18/12 at 03:39 PM

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 3:40pm

That is something to consider Gaveston2, but Daisey never acknowledged any dramatic license until he had to. He tried to prevent anyone from contacting his translator, meaning he was being willfully deceitful. Most of the thousands of people who heard his story took it at face value and he knew this.

The real shame about this is that when people bring up Foxconn's practices, some people will say "yeah, but wasn't a lot of stuff from that play made up?" It will happen and it will distract from the fact that there are indeed horrible labor practices there. It's the same thing when climate scientists manipulate data to prove global warming. Some take this as evidence again global warming. In this day and age when everything is so easy to fact check, if you believe in a cause, you have a responsibility to be truthful about it.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 3:56pm

Good arguments, guys, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that Daisey's "extracurricular" attempts to make his remarks sound like journalism are deplorable.

And I realize it's almost impossible now to view his onstage remarks without acknowledging that they are colored by what he said in other media.

So to be clear: I'm not defending what was obviously unethical behavior on Daisey's part.

But when it comes to any on-stage performance, I think we should assume some dramatic license is being taken and that we are witnessing somebody's "version" of the truth, not objective fact.

And when it comes to memoirs, I found it odd that posters here still seem to be sore at Frey and Burroughs, when everyday we note and laugh at the fictions put forth in the memoirs of actors and actresses. By now, shouldn't we assume that any memoir is what the writer wants us to believe about his/her life, not necessarily objective fact? (The same assumption we make, if we are wise, with personal friends and the stories they tell us.)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 4:57pm

No.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 7:34pm

Gaveston, I have appreciated your posts in the past, but I have to tell you that you couldn't be more off-base here. People who work in publishing, and especially people who write what's come to be called "creative non-fiction," take factual accuracy very seriously. Two years ago, I published my first book through winning a manuscript contest. It was a collection of memoiristic essays. The company that brought it out is a boutique press (i.e., not the kind of house that has limitless resources). They assigned an intern to go over my book and verify everything that could be verified. I was asked, for example, to produce a copy of my college transcript because it was referenced in one of my essays. This is the level to which this small company took complete accuracy seriously. This is publishing in the post-Frey world. I know people who have lost book contracts on memoirs because they've been found to embellish--and I agree with those terminations most of this time. The whole "the truth vs. a truth" discussion has its supporters, but I'm not one of them.

Based on my own experience having my book fact-checked within an inch of its life, I can't believe that The Public apparently didn't have anyone verify some of the claims in Daisey's script. It seems like he's executed one of the oldest (and saddest) plays out of the writer's handbook: he wrote his story in his mind before he even got to the point of doing research, and when he found that his research didn't support his lead, he bent the truth. I can only hope this will do for non-fiction theatre what the aftermath of James Frey has done to publishing.

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 7:50pm

Gaveston: i don't think i can add anything to Pal Joey's last response (!), though i do want to be sure you understand i never took your question(s) as any sort of attempt to defend daisey specifically ... you were clear on that all along.

and also, my second post mostly was responding to Kad's question about why i think the Public remains (grievously) in error.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 8:40pm

Thank you, whatever2. I haven't taken any of the remarks here as personal attacks on me for asking questions.

And thanks to AC. Memoir publishing is obviously not my area of expertise. Frankly, I suspect your experiences have more to do with the Oprah/Frey kerfluffle than with the history of memoir writing. Not that I'm opposed to fact checking, so if that is Frey's legacy, great! (And congratulations on the book, BTW. If you want to PM the title to me, I will look for it.)

But we regularly discuss what Richard Rodgers or Mary Martin said in their autobiographies with full acknowledgement that what they wrote may have deliberately avoided anything that would put them in a bad light. I'm not sure how what Frey or Burroughs did is any different (though granted, Rodgers never claimed to write KISS ME, KATE).

Sadly, I think we live in an era in which "truth" is defined very simplistically. BRAVEHEART was defended up and down by Mel Gibson on the ground that its depiction of period costume and combat were carefully researched; at the same time, the screenplay was utterly clueless as to constructions of gender, sexuality, nationality and class in the 14th century.

And with regard to Daisy, the literal truth of his interpreter's name matters less to me than how Ipads are made. Unfortunately (and as in the global warming example offered by others above) the fudging of the former may cast doubt on the latter. And that's the real shame here.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 8:55pm

But we regularly discuss what Richard Rodgers or Mary Martin said in their autobiographies with full acknowledgement that what they wrote may have deliberately avoided anything that would put them in a bad light. I'm not sure how what Frey or Burroughs did is any different (though granted, Rodgers never claimed to write KISS ME, KATE).

Maybe because you're trying to apply the standards of 40-50 years ago to the post-Frey, post-Leroy, post-Burroughs (and countless others) publishing world of today, or not recognizing the key difference between a celebrity autobiography and a work of creative non-fiction/literary memoir. (I suggest you read the piece I'm linking, by essayist Dinty W. Moore, in order to educate yourself on such differences and the value of absolute truth in memoir)
link

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 9:15pm

The Dinty essay is not as helpful as you hoped, AC, not for someone like me with no knowledge of the controversy being discussed.

Is your point that there are different rules for celebrities? If so, Dinty doesn't mention them.

What *I'm* saying is that post-modern literary criticism tends to recognize the illusion of objectivity and how even the must scrupulous writer reshapes "truth" in the very process of reporting it. And, yes, I think the post-modernists sometimes go too far with this argument.

But whether Daisy actually saw something with his own eyes or heard about it second hand doesn't rock my world, not if it is true that the NEW YORK TIMES verified the essential working conditions of which Daisy speaks. Would I rather he report his sources correctly? Absolutely, because in doing so he would prevent the superficial dismissal of his salient points.

But am I shocked? Not so much.

As for actual defamation of the living, we have laws and a legal system to deal with that. I'm sure Apple has plenty of lawyers on retainer. Perhaps they will file suit and clarify exactly where Daisy wandered into the realm of fiction.

Maybe I am stuck 50 years ago. Under what you call the post-Frey standards, IN COLD BLOOD and THE EXECUTIONER'S SONG could not have been written. And that would be a shame.



Updated On: 3/18/12 at 09:15 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/18/12 at 9:34pm

Maybe I am stuck 50 years ago. Under what you call the post-Frey standards, IN COLD BLOOD and THE EXECUTIONER'S SONG could not have been written. And that would be a shame.

Not the best example you could give, Gaveston, considering that Capote himself used the term "non-fiction novel," implying a playfulness with the truth. (I realize that the term "creative non-fiction" might sound similar to someone not familiar with the genre, like yourself, but it's really only used to separate these works from straight history or biography) When someone like Frey representing the facts of his own life--or Daisey representing the facts he supposedly gathered--claims complete truthfulness and is then proven otherwise, it calls a lot into question.

We actually seem to agree here. I'm not shocked that Daisey miscommunicated facts. I'm not shocked that some are defending him. I wasn't shocked when portions of Frey's book (having read it long before anything came out about its truthiness, I can say that there were always some portions that smelled wrong to me) were discredited. But I am bothered by the idea that we can all something non-fiction that is tacitly fabricated in order to put across a certain point. That is not non-fiction. This is what I tell my students when I teach creative writing classes, and this is what I'd tell a monologist like Daisey who is trying to put a message across by using a creative outlet.

I provided the Moore essay because it really gets at what's at the heart of most of these debates: You can't just make up facts, or fabricate entire events, and then call your work non-fiction. That's the exact opposite of non-fiction.

Updated On: 3/18/12 at 09:34 PM